Dismissed

Dave Banerjee v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021WP/11148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the safety measures of a private ride-hailing company. The court held that a writ remedy is not available against a private company as it does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

No writ remedy available against the private respondent; petition disposed of with costs.

Dave Banerjee Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

W.P. NO.11148/2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

DAVE BANERJEE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF SANDIP BANERJEE, RESIDING AT # 206, 3RD MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MISS SAMEEKSHA PATIL & MISS KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

2 . COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

3 . UBER INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: E-15, MAIN MARKET, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110016, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR BHAVIK RATHOD.

¶15

¶16

4 . UBER CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 1455, MARKET STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103, UNITED STATES, REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O MR DARA KHOSROWSHAHI. … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI SANKEERTH VITTAL FOR SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W V/O DATED 18.03.2019; NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W V/O DATED 1.9.2021)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT OR ORDER TO ENURE THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY INCORPORATES ALL THE SAFETY MESURES AND RECOMMENDATONS AS PER THE NOTCE APPENDED AT ANNEXURE-E DTD15.12.2017 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with

¶22

the following substantive prayers:

¶23

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to ensure that the Respondent Company incorporates all the safety measures and recommendations as per the notice appended at

¶24

Annexure E dated 15/12/2019.

¶25

¶26

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to direct the Respondent State to take action as against the Respondent Company as per the Complaint dated 16/11/2017 as per Annexure-C.

¶27

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submit that pursuant to complaint of the petitioner, investigation in the matter having been accomplished, the Airport Police have already filed the Charge Sheet against the accused in C.C.No.2470/2018; that the guidelines which the petitioner seeks having been already promulgated by the State Government concerning the subject matter, the challenge thereto is now pending in W.A.No.4787/2016 before the Division Bench of this Court and direction interdicting their enforcement also has been issued vide ad interim order dated 13.12.2016.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the third

¶29

respondent points out that his client being a private company does not answer the description of ‘State’ u/a 12 of the Constitution of India as interpreted by the Apex Court in Ajay

¶30

¶31

Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 SCR (2) 79 and

¶32

therefore, no writ remedy can be claimed against his client.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court accords a descent destation to the lis for the following reasons:

¶34

(a) A writ remedy cannot be availed as against private respondent No.3 which happens to be only a company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 which does not have trappings of “State” or “other authorities” as defined u/a 12 of the Constitution; it does not discharge public power or functions; the other grievance of the petitioner having been already addressed by the Police and a Charge Sheet having been already filed, no further examination of the matter needs to be done in that regard.

¶35

(b) Above apart, the State having already promulgated the Guidelines which otherwise would address the grievance of petitioner and other similar persons, now nothing more can be expected from it since challenge thereto is pending in W.A.No.4787/2016 and further there is stay of enforcement of the same.

¶36

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is

¶38

disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

cbc

Dave Banerjee v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dave Banerjee v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Holalu Primary Agriculture Vs State of Karnataka

H E Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Primary Agriculture Credit Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v a Ashwath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Mamatha K.S. Vs Sri P Murali

Sri S N Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka